Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > MM> I agree that I don't see a good reason to allow specifying 'n' > MM> as argument unless e.g. for "bonferroni". > MM> What do other think ? > > no reaction yet. > > I've thought a bit more in the mean time: > Assume someone has 100000 P values and knows that he > only want to adjust the smallest ones. > Then, only passing the ones to adjust and setting 'n = 100000' > can be useful and will certainly work for "bonferroni" but > I think it can't work in general for any other method. > > In sum, I still tend to agree that the argument 'n' should be > dropped -- but maybe with "deprecation" -- i.e. still allow it > for 2.1.x giving a deprecation warning.
There's another case to consider, namely when you get the same tests multiple times. Think SAS, for instance; when it compares groups you get every comparison twice: I vs III as well as III vs I, so you need a way to say that there are really only k * (k - 1) / 2 tests. Then again, this probably only works for "bonferroni", and R's pairwise.t.test() evades this by extracting the lower.tri before adjustment. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
